stay -- choose what they really want to do and do it. you should be able to do it regardless of your gender, ethnicity, your religion, your race -- any of those things, you should be able to do it because it if the right way for the world operate and it is an enormous waste of human resources when people cannot do something simply because of artificial barriers. my daughter can be whatever she wants to be as long as she can support me. [laughter] .

>> justice john paul stevens will step down when the court finishes the work for the summer. the best place to explore his life and legacy is the c-span library. dating back to 1985. you can search of and cheered. the c-span video library, cables latest gift to america. president obama met with leaders from around the world today at the white house to talk about nuclear security. the white house announced the ukraine will get rid of stockpiles of enriched uranium. we will get an update on the nuclear weapons summit next.

a panel examines this state of new media, a social networking, and grass-roots communications in iran. a group of former u.s. ambassadors discussed the prospects for peace in the middle east. >> all this month, see the winner of c-span's student documentary competition. watch the top winning videos every morning at 6:50 a.m. eastern before "washington journal." during the 830 a.m. program, meet the winner is. >> the white house announced ukraine will get rid of its nuclear material by 2012. robert gibbs spoke with reporters about the ukraine

agreement and other nuclear issues. he is joined by counter- terrorism advisor john brennan. here is a portion of that meeting. >> good afternoon. before we hear from john brennan, i want to start with that announcement. ukraine announced a landmark decision to get rid of all of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium by the time of the next nuclear security summit in 2012. ukraine intends to remove a part of its stocks this year. it will convert its civil nuclear research facilities to operate with low enriched uranium fuel. this is something that the u.s. has tried to make happen for more than 10 years. the material is enough to construct several nuclear

weapons. this demonstrates ukraine's leadership in nonproliferation and comes at an important region when we know a lot of highly enriched uranium exists. with that, let me turn this over to john brennan. >> i can answer some. we will both answer questions. >> good afternoon. the threat of nuclear terrorism israel. it is serious. it is growing. it constitutes one of the greatest threats to our national security and indeed, to global security. over the past two decades, there has been indisputable evidence that dozens of terrorist groups have actively dought some kind of -- dought some kind of weapon of mass effect. it includes chemical and radiological. the consequences and impact of a nuclear attack would be the most devastating as well as the most lasting.

the ability to obtain a nuclear weapon and to use it is the ultimate and the most prized goal of terrorist groups. al qaeda is especially notable for its longstanding interest in acquiring weapons usable nuclear material and the requisite expertise that would allow it to develop a yield producing improvised nuclear devices. al qaeda has been engaged in the effort to acquire a nuclear weapon for over 15 years. its interest remains strong today. al qaeda and other terrorist groups know that if they are able to acquire hi larry -- highly enriched uranium and turn it into a weapon they would have the ability not only to threaten our security but also to kill and injured many innocent men, women, and children which is the sole agenda.

disturbingly, international organized criminal syndicates and criminal gangs are keenly aware of the strong interest of terrorist groups to acquire fissile material. over the past decade, there has been a significant increase in the sharing of terrorism related in intelligence. to include intelligence to pursue their nuclear weapons ambitions. while this intelligence sharing is invaluable, it must be accompanied by a collective and effective action by all nations of the world to deny and to deprive terrorist criminal groups the opportunity to gain the nuclear related material and the expertise that would allow them to fill their evil goals. indeed, our future and the future of generations yet to come depend on our ability to safeguard these materials and expertise.

while there are many do -- different nuclear issues the administration is addressing, there is none more important than this one. that is why we're focusing on nuclear terrorism and nuclear securities over the next few days. these issues must be addressed with a sense of focus and urgency. thank you. >> we will take a series of questions. >> a question for you on ukraine and a question on al qaeda for mr. brennan. if highly in rich uranium, where will it be sent? -- the highly enriched uranium, where will it be said? >> the location is yet to be determined. the announcement and the agreement happened a little bit ago. that is a process that will be -- we will be working on. the u.s. will degree some degree of technical and financial assistance to ensure that happens.

>> [inaudible] >> is among them. -- it is among them. >> al qaeda has been seeking a clear weapons and you describe their interest as remaining strong. could you provide evidence that they are pursuing, anything you can point to? >> you have open testimony in court about al qaeda as efforts to obtain uranium in 1994. you have statements that al qaeda seniors including osama bin laden have made. they say it is in the defense of their agenda. there is a strong body of intelligence that goes back over the past decade that clearly indicates al qaeda is -- has been trying to procure these materials on the open market and with criminal syndicates. the evidence is strong. the track record is

demonstrated. we now that al qaeda continues to pursue these materials. >> a follow-up on that. are you aware of any efforts by al qaeda to obtain materials or expertise since the meeting that took place before 9/11, where members, of former members traveled up to talk to [inaudible] secondly, are you aware of any efforts at this point, continuing efforts to infiltrate the body of scientists in pakistan or training [inaudible] ? >> there have been numerous reports over the last eight or nine years about attempts throughout the world to obtain various types of reported material.

that is nuclear related. al qaeda has been involved to acquire it. they have been scammed a number of times but they continue to pursue that. we know individuals who have been given that responsibility. there have been demonstrated interest across a number of years. one of the things we're concerned about is this is the most sensitive of their efforts. it will have only a few people involved in the effort. a requires that intelligence work is done. al qaeda is looking for those older buildings and facilities and stockpiles in different countries. that would allow them to obtain materials that they can use. to go after those individuals that have the materials and experience to fabricated device. >> [inaudible]

>> there is evidence of their attempts to do that. i would like to think that we could for their success. >> -- thwart their success. >> is there reassurance [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> let me -- before john gets to

pakistan, i would read you from the read out yesterday. the president indicated his appreciation of that broadbased sentiment addressing the topic of the conference. a party that he has reiterated for all countries. the prime minister of pakistan indicated his assurance that pakistan takes nuclear security seriously and has appropriate safeguards. on poland, no decisions have yet been made. >> i will not get into the details of the bilateral discussions. today was a seminal one.

it was part of process that was started 15 months ago when we had regular and ongoing conversations with the number of nations of the world to include pakistan, addressing the goals and objectives that we know that al qaeda is after and what types of threat they pose to our interest in the interest of other countries. our engagement runs the gamut as far as what al qaeda is trying to do, whether to kill innocents or carry out other objectives that threaten our national security and pakistani national security. on the issue of [inaudible] sometimes they have information about material that came out of the former soviet union or stockpiles and they will try to provide the material to other groups to sell. a lot of is is scat is scam. stockpile still need to be buttoned down.

these gangs are looking for opportunities to make money. it runs across continents. not just a particular area or locale. toured asia, europe, the western hemisphere. these gangs are trying to obtain the material. >> our concerns are global and that is why the president has brought these individuals together which is to make sure this is collective action. >> the president was directly engaged on this question when president saudari and president karzai traveled in march 2009 as part of the trilateral meeting. i would say as i mentioned in my announcement, one of the important developments that of the announcement relating to ukraine is we understand the concentration of these types of materials in the former soviet

republics. >> [inaudible] could come to the united states. i you concerned that the u.s. -- are you concerned that the u.s. [inaudible] >> the goal of this summit and the reason the president is concerned is our genuine concern about the security environment in which this material is held. we do not worry about the security environment with which the material is held in this country. whether that is in different places around the country. the presidency's as john mentioned, the threat of this type of material falling into the hands of someone who wants to use it for their evil designs as the number one security face we threat as a world -- security

threat we face is a world. this is the type of announcement that we would like to see. i traveled with the then- senator, to ukraine in 2005. we visited the facility that is the equivalent of the ukraine's cdc. we walked into a room and out of our refrigeratora our -- a refrigerator, someone took out test tubes that were anthrax. suffice it to say, i think the level at which we believe that type of material ought to be secured i, in 2005, that standad was not met at the facility. we [unintelligible] and in other programs the type

of funding necessary to of many of these countries secure this material. we have assisted ukraine in a number of those projects, whether it is biological, chemical, or in this case, nuclear. >> president obama met with officials for more than -- from more than 40 countries on a summit on nuclear security. here is the president reading some of the heads of delegation today. -- greeting some of the heads of delegation today. >> how is everybody doing today?

>> the director general of the international atomic energy agency. >> thank you very much. >> we will keep you very busy. >> [inaudible] >> his excellency herman van rompuy. president of the european council. his excellency, minister of foreign affairs of the arab

republic. >> secretary of state for foreign and commonwealth affairs. >> his excellency, the minister

of former fares for democratic republic of algeria. >> the hon. senator john faulkner, minister for defense of australia. >> his excellency, deputy prime minister of the kingdom of thailand.

we will be back. >> the deputy prime minister and minister of atomic energy of israel. >> thank you. >> his excellency, the vice- president of the republic of indonesia.

>> his oral intelsat -- royal highness [unintelligible] >> his excellency, prime minister of belgium. >> the prime minister of new zealand.

>> his excellency, the prime minister of the czech republic. >> thank you. >> prime minister of

malaysia. >> his excellency, silvio berlusconi, president of the council of ministers of the republic of italy.

>> his excellency, ben timlin, secretary-general of the united nations. -- ban ki-moon, secretary- general of the united nations. >> his excellency, prime minister of sweden. >> his excellency, prime minister of the islamic

republic of pakistan. >> his excellency, prime minister of japan. >> his excellency, prime minister of the kingdom of morocco.

>> her excellency, dr. angela merkel, chancellor of the federal republic of germany. >> his highness, crown prince of qadaffi and deputy supreme commander of the united emiratab emirates armed forces. >> the right hon. stephen

harper, prime minister of canada. >> his excellency, prime minister of the socialist republic of vietnam. >> his excellency, president of

the government of spain. >> his excellency, prime minister of norway. >> his excellency, prime minister of the republic of india.

[inaudible conversations] >> his excellency, prime minister of the republic of singapore. >> his excellency, prime minister of the republic of turkey.

>> the prime minister of the kingdom of the netherlands. [inaudible conversations] >> president of the swiss confederation.

[inaudible conversations] >> his excellency, ambassador of the republic of poland to the united states.

[inaudible conversations] >> his excellency, president of the republic of [unintelligible]

>> his excellency, goodluck jonathan, acting president of the federal republic of nigeria. >> her excellency gloria arroyo, president of the philippines. [inaudible conversations] >> his excellency, president of

ukraine. >> his excellency, president of the republic of armenia. >> his excellency, jacob zuma, president of the republic of south africa. [inaudible conversations]

>> his excellency, lee mung-bak, president of the republic of south korea. [inaudible conversations] >> is excellent say, -- his excellency, president of the republic of kyrgyzstan. -- kazakhstan. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. >> president of the republican of finland. [inaudible conversations]

>> her excellency, president of the argentine republic. >> his excellency, president of the republic of brazil. [inaudible conversations]

>> his excellency, nicolas sarkozy, president of the french republic. [inaudible conversations] >> his excellency, president of the united mexican states. [inaudible conversations] >> his excellency, president of

georgia. [inaudible conversations] >> his excellency, dmitry medvedev, president of the russian federation. [inaudible conversations] >> his excellency, who jintao, president of the people's republic of china. [inaudible conversations] >> his majesty, king of the

[unintelligible] kingdom of jordan. >> you are watching public affairs programming and c-span. the panel examine its social networking and grassroots communications in iran. a group of former u.s. ambassadors discussed the prospect for peace in the middle east. >> the government's assistance to wall street is expected to cost much lower than earlier

projected. we will get an update from paul kiel. after that, stuart taylor on the retirement of justice john paul stevens. then robert reich with his perspective on the economy. timothy geithner is interviewed by an economics columnist. this is part of a conference hosted by the american society of newspaper editors. that is live at 12:45 p.m. eastern. now, a panel examines how new media and social networking in iran is changing grassroots communications and politics in that country. we will hear from the author of "reading lolita in tehran".

this is an hour and 50 minutes. >> welcome and thank you for coming to our event on iran's blogosphere. we have a different conference for you today. i'm a professor here at gw school of public affairs. we are hosting today's event. we're doing things a little differently today. our goal today is to talk about the importance of engagement, means of engagement, the importance of person to person contact even when foreign policy between two countries is a

difficult, to say the least. we will be talking about new media. we will have an online moderator who will be bringing in comments and questions that we have received through our conference web page and facebook page and twitter feeds. and also some videos that have been sent in from everyone from a noted film director to iranian bloggers to students. we are partnering with the broadcasting board of governors for the institute. it has always been a wonderful partnership. i want to get started so we can get to our keynote speaker. jeff hirschberg from the broadcasting board of governors. he is a senior adviser to ogilvie government relations. he has broad experience. since 2002 he has been on the

board of bbg and a board member of freedom house, and ngo that expand -- supports the expansion of freedom around the world. [applause] >> thank you. i really appreciate the partnership of george washington university to present this program to you. for those of you may not know, the board of government -- governors is a supervising agency. we broadcast at 60 languages to over 171 million people around the world every week. each of our broadcasters, the voice of america, radio free europe, radio liberty, review and tv and radio free asia are dedicated to the principle that

provided reliable news and information, contributes to international peace and stability. the broadcasters of the bbg work to promote freedom and democracy to -- through the vehicle of objective, fact based journalism. we do so in iran through radio. they broadcast 24 hours a day to iran, bringing uncensored and unbiased news and admission to the iranian people. a lot of the information which i cannot do -- they cannot get elsewhere. according to independent research, 30% of the iranian adult population watches pnm weekly and the radio reaches an important audience as well. never before have we found our work more challenging in iran. i was trying to figure on how to

put this to you in language that everyone can understand. we matter. the reason we and international broadcasters matter, the reason we know that, the iranian government has spent so much time, effort, and trouble trying to shut down and close out our distribution routs, whether it is -- routes. whether it is jamming broadcasts or blogging satellite tranis uplink or downlink. they do it all on a daily basis. we are dedicated to fighting this. we have developed new technologies to defeat their jamming and we know it is an ongoing struggle, it is difficult to do. we are actively combatting jamming through proxy services and software that is brand new.

traffic to our website ballooned over 400% after the elections in 2009. we have developed the first person news app for android and iphones. we do so because we believe what president kennedy told the voice of america in 1962. the freedom of information is a fundamental human right. where repressive governments attempt to control information, and there are a lot of those around, including iraq, we were to get people the information they need to make company decisions for their own lives. we will continue with that mission until such time, if ever, that is accomplished. i would like to introduce my

colleague and friend frank cesno to introduce our keynote speaker. [applause] >> thank you, jeff. >> thank you. we explore and examine and study the intersection of media and politics, public diplomacy, and nowhere is that exploration, the intersection more fascinating and more important than in iran. ration of that intersection more fascinating and more important than in iran. our keynoter today is best known as the author of the national bestseller "reading lolita in

tehran." it's a compassionate but harrowing portrait of the islamic revolution in iran and how it affected one university professor and her students. the book spent more than 115 weeks on the "new york times" bestseller list. not bad. it's been translated into 32 languages and it has won several literary awards. excuse me. including the 2004 nonfiction book of the year award from book sense. the frederick w.ness book award. and several others. reading lolita in iran has earned critical praise in tehran and literary distinction as it has built a enthusiastic readership. they have been captivated by the story and the characters framed in this alluring and confounding place. iran. the book is an incisive exploration of the transformative powers, that truly transformative powers of

fiction and a world of tyranny. she's a visiting professor and the executive director of cultural conversations at the foreign policy institute. of johns hopkins school of international students here in washington, d.c. where she's the professor of ethics and history. she teaches the relation between culture and politics and held a fellowship at the university. she's taught at the university of tehran. a free islamic university. before her return to the united states in 1997. she's earned respect. and international recognition for advocating on behalf of intellectuals, youth, and especially young women. in 1981 she was expelled from the university of tehran for

refusing to wear the mandatory islamic veil. and she did not return to teaching until 1991. she has written for the "times" the "wall street journal," our cover story the veiled threat of the iranian's revolution woman problem published in the new republic has been reprinted in several languages. she's currently working on a book entitled "republic of the imagination" which is about the power of liberation to empower the minds of people. she lives here in washington, d.c. at the conclusion of her keynote i will join her for a few moments and have an opportunity to explore what she said with her and to open it up to you for your questions from that mic in the middle of the room. so please, as she speaks, and as we speak, if you'd prepare your brief questions, we will get to you as well. so now it is my great pleasure to welcome to the george washington university and to all of you azar nafisi. [applause]

>> thank you so much. >> thank you so much. it's such a great pleasure to be here today. especially when all those wonderful institutions that are constantly reminding us how important the truth is. the academia george washington university and the board of governors and all these people on the panel. and i do think that truth is, in fact, the main issue. the main topic at that we will be talking about today. and because of that, when i was thinking about how just a year ago -- it was just before the june uprising or rebellions in 2009, if you thought of iran, the images that came out of iran

were not the images that were later taking over the internet and finally the media over here. the images that was given to us through his cartoons. the image of that amazing girl nadal, who has become the symbol of iran and iranian youth. and definitely you would not have -- nobody would have thought when they thought of iran of a group of young girls sitting in a room overlooking the snow capped mountains of tehran and reading lolita. when you think of each one of these images you would not think of iran. iran was defined at that time by wmds, by terror. and the first image that came to your mind -- because his image was all over the media here. from larry king to anderson cooper to charlie rose. everywhere you looked we had our

wonderful president, mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad with a shirk on his faisst as if he had broken the neighbor's window and gotten away with it. and by golly he had gotten away with it. he reminded me of a george clooney or brad pitt this fascination people had with mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad. the questions like how many kids do you have? do you love new york? how many kids are in your jails? how many are being raped as we speak? you know, those questions, of course. and it reminded me -- when i thought of that view -- because, you see, the whole idea is that you need to look at a nation, at an individual, at any -- at any -- at reality through diverse eyes. through different perspectives in order to come as close as you can to one -- to the whole -- to

the whole image. and in order to understand a country like iran, in order to understand a country like united states, you need to understand it. not just through the eyes of the governments. even when the governments -- even when the politicians are democratic. far worse when you live in a totalitarian society whose first act is to take away the group of voices. to reduce all voices. to just one image. and so the point here -- and what i celebrate now -- and in a meeting like this is that finally those voices and those images that had been forced underground for so many years have burst and blossomed. on the internet and on television screens. and when we talk of iran, we

know more talk one aspect of iran but iran as a country that is mysterious. and one of the most important debates and will be the answer to many of the very important problems that we are facing today. so whenever i think of mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad's perspective, i remember of an anecdote -- i mention it in my book but many people have later also mentioned it. it becomes sort of the metaphor for me about this whole idea of truth. and although it sounds very abstract, how important it is in our lives, not just personal but also political and cultural. and when we are here talking about iranian journalists and bloggers and how we can connect

to them, we understand how essential their role is in not just changing the iranian society and changing iran's role in the region and in the world but changing our perspectives about ourselves. because the way we look at others is a reflection of the way we look at ourselves. those people we think as our allies and our enemies defines who we are. and where we stand in the world today. and what we expect of the world today. well, the image that comes to my mind is the image of this guy who was the censor for iran in 1994. he was blind. he was nearly blind. so he would be sitting -- one famous director told me that he would be sitting there and somebody would be sitting beside him. and he would tell him things like now the girl is approaching

the boy, you know, cut. you know, so he couldn't see. but he could say how people should be acting. and after 1994, his job was changed. and he became the head of the new television channel in iran. the main censor for the new television channel in iran, channel 4. and his successor who was not blind -- i mean, not physically but metaphorically definitely blind. he used the same method that this censor used. he would have people give their scripts to him in tapes, tape-recorders, and he would listen to the scripts. this metaphor of the blind censor for me became a metaphor for all those totalitarian mind- set who in fact are afraid of

the diversity of voices, of the diversity of opinions, the diversity of ideas. they tried to impose their own image of reality upon, in the case of the islamic republic of iran, upon the nation. when the islamic republic came to power and its telestrating came with it, the first target that they found, were those who symbolizes this diversity. women, minorities and those who worked in culture. academia, mr. ahmadinejad recently stated with regret that the iranian academia, since the beginning of last century, have

remained -- had been secular and liberal. unfortunately, the islamic republic has been not able to do anything about it. so their first targets were in fact women, and like what has been said, been fighting for their rights since the 1800's, one of the first things that a totalitarian regime does, in order to legitimize what is, in order to legitimize its confiscation of reality, it first confiscates history. . . legitimatize its confiscates history. they want to impose their fundamentalist views upon a society. the first thing that they do is confiscate history.

the first thing they want to do, they confiscate and redefine what it means, for example, to be an american. or what it means to have a constitution. that is the first thing that they do. because history needs to justify what we do. what we were in the past will show us what we are now. and what we will be in the future. so they reduced that history of an ancient country. iran goes back to 3,000 years of history. history. it wasn't even islamic. islam came to iran in seventh century. but after the invasion of iran, that islam mixed and mingled with the past of iran. every country that is muslim is muslim in its own way. in the same way that every country that is christian is christian in its own way.

you have so many definitions. and yet all of those components of islam from shia to sunni to the mystical -- one of the most peaceful philosophies and ideologies that came against orthodox islam. and had its origins in iran, and mysticism -- all of these were lumped together. and, you know, and all of them were reduced to state, an official version of religion. because you noticed that, you know, this country is a christian majority. and yet we have so many different denominations where we talk about america being christian, are we talking about sarah palin's christianity? are we talking about obama's christianity? are we talking about reverend wright's christianity? are we talking about reverend

falwell's christianity? there are so many ways of interpreting religion. but once religion becomes the state -- let's say from tomorrow, we say we're a christian nation and ms. palin's christianity is what we will all do, then religion itself is confiscated. and yet when you said that, people both in power in iran and those apologists for them here would call you western. you know, to say that religion should be diverse was an insult to islam. now, iranian women, iranian men, iranian clerics from the beginning of the last century -- from late 19th century had been fighting against an absolutist

monarchy and against an absolutist religion. and they were the first in the region -- iran was the first in the region to have a constitutional revolution. the same forces that you see in the streets of tehran today are the great, great, great children -- great grandchildren and grandchildren of those forces who came out into the streets of tehran and other places in iran 100 years ago. and created the constitutional revolution, which was the first revolution to create modern and open institutions. and the iranian women who are called western because they say that they need to have a choice -- they have been fighting for their rights for over 100 years. their rights was not something that a shah could give them. so that an ayatollah could take away. they had been -- they had been fighting. they had been beaten. they had been exiled.

morgan schuster in 1912 wrote about iran. he lived in iran. and he wrote about iran. how iranian -- i talk about it in my second book in "things i have been silent about." iranian women in the course of a few years have made leaps of centuries. and they have -- they are far ahead of their sisters in the west. so what i'm trying to say in this very short time is that what your facing here is not a regime that is defending religion. that is defending tradition. that is defending culture. that all totalitarian systems come in the name of half-truths. and all totalitarian system takes something from the society, some aspect of society and then extend it to the society as a whole.

and when we talk about -- and, you know, one of the things -- this is a good time because when we talk about iran, we also have to learn about america. right? this is a dialog. and in dialog, it's not ever a one-way street. really what amazed me was that over the 18 years that i lived in the islamic republic, i had some of the most amazing experiences in terms of the flourishing and the need and the thirst and the hunger to connect to the world. and to connect through the best the world had to offer, it's ideas, it's philosophies, it's novels, it's poetry, its music. we had some of the most -- you know, i remember once i gave a talk. there was almost a riot. you know, people -- when they came to watch the movies by the

avant-garde by a russian filmmaker, it seemed as if they were going to a concert by michael jackson. you know, so the whole idea was that there was this thirst for culture. and yet i come here -- and, you know, and also, for example, about the issue of the veil. there was far more freedom among ourselves to debate the issue. and i want to mention this here because it's very important to understand that the issue of the veil is not about religion. it is not about whether the veil is good or bad. when i refused to wear the veil, it was because i thought that no state, no authority has the right to tell its citizens whether to worship god or not and in what way to worship god. that it was dependent upon the citizens to decide that for themselves. and my grandmother, who never took off her veil, had the same idea as i did.

and she would cry and tell us that this is not the real islam because they do not flog people. and they do not put young women in jail. and give them virginity tests. they do not insult god's children in this way. if they are true muslims. so i want you to understand that this society is very traumatized because not only its history, not only its culture. not only its reality. but also in the name of its religion something has been taken away from it. that for the past 30 years it is trying to retrieve. so the whole idea then was when i came here. and in a society where i'm free to write, when i'm free to talk, when i'm free to criticize, i realize that the same reduced images, the same mutilated

images that existed there are now dominating here. and when you talk to people about, you know, the right of choice, about iranian women, they look at you oh, but you're western. oh, it's their culture. and some people from the right and some people from the right -- from the left -- the people on the right say it's their culture. so let's attack them. they're terrible people. people on the left -- it's their culture. let the natives do whatever they want to do. now, the whole point is that what did they attribute to our culture? when the islamic republic came to power, iran had some of the most progressive laws on women. we had two women ministers. one minister for women's affairs. my own mother was one of the first women who went to the iranian parliament in 1963. switzerland didn't get its right to vote for women until 1974. we had women in the industry.

we had women pilots. we had women judges. the nobel laureate was the first circuit judge because they said women are too weak to be able to judge. and for women like her, that did not take away their motivation. they came back into public and became defenders for women's rights and human rights. this is the kind of women that we have in that society. but the first thing that the government did before having a new parliament or a new constitution was to repeal the family protection law which protected women at home and at work. they reduced the age of marriage from 18 to 9 for females after women fighting for almost 20-something years they finally raised it to 13. but still the judge can give its

consent for the father to marry a girl under the age of 13. how critical for a culture who would put a man in jail if they have sex with a 13-year-old girl to tell me that this is my culture. or something that had never existed in the history of iran, which is stoning people to death for prostitution. what they call prostitution and adultery. if that is my culture, then slavery is the culture of this country. and not abraham lincoln. and frederick douglass and flanary o'connor and william faulkner and mark twain. if this is my culture, then inquisition, fascism and communism is the culture of europe. fascism and communism came from the heart of civilized europe. they didn't come from the muslim world.

they didn't come from the east. that is their culture. not dante, st. thomas aquinas, jane austen, shakespeare and others. every culture has something to be ashamed of. there are no innocents in this world. not a single innocent nation. but what makes a culture great is its ability to see the points that are terrible about itself, shame, genuine shame. not the kind of shames that politicians -- nowadays they don't even apologize for the shameful things they do. not the kind of things that the politicians do, oh, we are so ashamed. oh, we feel your pain. no, not that kind. real shame, which leads you to change. real shame which created the

abolitionist movement in this country. when i left this country in the 1970s, obama and mr. lieberman -- none of them maybe could have gone into many institutions in this country still. hillary clinton as president, hillary clinton -- women like gloria steinam and betty friedman were made browbeating as women at home. it's the fact that within the past 30 years, in the past 100 and something years from there it has come to here. so that we now not only have a barack obama who is the president but a barack hussein obama who will remind many husseins in this country that they do not have to become terrorists. that they can become, in fact, presidents.

and if barack hussein obama who chooses to become christian and keep the name hussein so now maybe a hillary or a bill will become jewish or bahari or maybe a hussein or ali will become christian or jewish or atheists for heaven's sake. i mean, i just want to actually go through the conclusion what i was trying to show is that if you are talking about truth, whether it is china, or iran, a corridor for -- or at darfur, you have to go to history, you have to go to culture. you have to remember that iran sees its identity in its greatest poet.

iran and no poems by heart, even if they are illiterate. 750 years ago, a poet whose book is in every iran and house talk about a man who would drink wine in private and flog people in public. another poet said, "every time you pass my gray, down a glass of wine to remember my life." these cultures we call a muslim are sensual, erotic, and colorful. they are sensual and erotic and colorful. life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is not an american

thing. the woman in afghanistan who has been shot to death, the woman in iran who is being raped in jails, the woman in saudi arabia who is being flogged for the way she looks. the woman in darfur who is being -- whose children are killed in front of her and is being raped, they also want to be happy ... now, i come to the end of my talk, and the reason i say this so boldly, is that i think that the youth you mentioned in your talk can verify what i think.

the reason so many of us do not want to hear it is that truth is always a cold crash. you do not need to be political. the reason the movement will be successful is because it is not merely political. that is why washington has been getting iran so wrong for so long. this, like south africa, and like eastern europe, is a movement that is fighting for something far more important than politics. for 30 years, iran and women -- iranian women have been fighting against these laws, educating, gathering signatures.

there is a book out now that is the history of the 1 million signatures and campaign that the women of iran created. they chose -- the first sign of why iran is important to us is because iran is not its regime. if you want to fight a totalitarian system, you cannot be totalitarian yourself. insults' to the regime, a call for its overthrow, this is not the aim of the movement. the aim of the movement, it has learned its lesson, is not just a new regime, but the changing mind-set. a changing the mindset means that the means you use will

become the sum total of the end. the reason it will teach us a great deal about ourselves, about a region and about the world is that it has chosen to use the most democratic means in order to change the non- democratic system. they have the guns. they have the gills. -- they have the jails. what do we have? that is the point. so the women of iran used the 1 million signature campaign to educate people in the country and without. whether you are an orthodox muslim woman or whether you are an agnostic modern, very open woman, these laws are against giving -- are against you.

these laws that do not give you custody of your child, that mario according to your father's wish, that do not allow you to become a judge, these are against you. so women would debate. they had to wear the veil, but you could see the differences. you saw a young, old, male, female, asking for freedom, asking for their openness. this is the strategy, to educate and to evolve. because if the struggle is political -- you know how in politics, it is always compromise. but there are other areas into the society where we can use

other methods. this is what a democracy means. we have humanities. we have writers, journalists, artists. we can become the conscience of a society. what we do then is to use the truth as a weapon. that is what is happening right now in iran. the bloggers in iran can talk much more about this than i can. if they flog women for showing in their hair, if they can put them in jail for 14 years and torture them, if they can be put in jail for just telling the truth, that shows how vulnerable the regime is, how afraid they

are. women's weapons of mass destruction is what they write, the bit of hair that they show. i am looking at my watch all the time. what i want to end with is the fact that we need to take this movement in iran very seriously. we need to take it seriously and not just for their sake. do not feel sorry for the iran ian people. they have taken control of their lives, and they refused to be victims. you need to add their voices to them. communicate with them at the internet and radio. continue a conversation with the

iranian people. people were confessing that they were trying to ferment a revolution because they were reading max weber, for heaven's sake. your best weapon is not your military. your best weapon is the culture. they are taking in that culture. they're putting frederick douglass on their website. they are reminding us in america that the crisis is not financial. it is a crisis of vision, and of imagination. the best way to go against a blind sensors here in america or there in iran is through

conversation. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. it is a great passage -- it is a great pleasure to have you here on campus. i would like to ask you this question because much of the world, certainly here in the west, we hear so much about parts of iran. we hear about mahmoud ahmadinejad. we hear about the nuclear program. we do not hear about what you referred to as a "diploma's a incised -- "the climatized -- " diplomaticized society."

>> we do have to bank the islamic republic for so many things. -- thank the islamic republic of for so many things. one of the things that the revolution did, which was very important, was it forced us to not just question the regime, but to question ourselves. that became part of culture that had not questioned itself. for example, when we talk about women, the way it muslim women are, or the way islamic women baring -- women are, we did not know. we had to read history. we had to look at history to find out the truth. and as we conduct the truth, things changed.

many of my muslim students who were in top positions at the university would come to my class full of prejudices. why are we reading "wuthering heights?" it is a book about adultery. they would lead a full of curiosity, wanting to know about the world. >> you mentioned the role of the loggers in terms of getting information to america. how does anyone today obtained the truth about the world? >> partly through the internet. of course, there is always access. one of the amazing things that has happened in iran, as in any totalitarian society, is that many of the guardians of the revolution who defended this

revolution from the beginning through contact with the world, have changed. there are all of these rhode elements within the remaining -- rogue elements within this regime. they allow you to publish a book which will become censored. for a time, we had a one-sided relationship with satellite dishes. >> just listening to your comments here about faith, i am just wondering if you think that iran can successfully democratizing itself and to reclaim that cultural identity and remain an islamic republic. >> the title islamic republic has a prejudicial intent.

it is like the german republic. a republic is based on a democracy, where there will be many ideas. first of all computer -- first of all, religion used as an ideology does not apply to the whole of the iranian people. we have many different ideas. we have christians, we have jews, we have muslims. all believes should be represented properly. many of the former revolutionaries now are talking about having an open society. >> is there an attraction to a

secular, open society? >> that is why iran is so exciting. you know, they are really finding what democracy means. they are destroying the missing -- the myth that a democracy is just a western thing. peca >> can you talk a little bit about the psychological aspects of the nuclear program? why iran brandishes this program beyond whether it wants weapons or not? particularly, why mahmoud ahmadinejad is so obsessed with it? >> this woman down here has much

more in permission and then i do on this topic. -- much more information and then i do on this topic. i think it is abducted frustration both -- i think it is out of frustration both domestically and internationally. you take concept and you take people hostage. they think they can intimidate the west once they have a nuclear weapon. they think people will move up to their side or do as they want them to. it does not have support from other leaders. but really, she should talk

about this. >> she has, actually. i would like to follow up on that though. this will be our last question, because we need to move onto the next part of the program. there has been a lot of focus on the iranian nuclear program. what role does that play, in your view, in the national pride, national psychology of the country? >> this is a question who buy it -- that i asked a friend of mine. she said, "why do people living over there think that we wake up in the morning and our first words are we need to have a nuclear weapon?" she is worried about her child getting a job. she is worried about keeping the house that she lives in.

the pollution is killing them over there. that is the first thing. the second thing, with national pride, i think that americans and sometimes very crudely talk about national pride. every country has their own national pride. but why do think the iranians would be more proud of having nuclear weapons and then being represented as a civilized country whose representative is not mr. aukland in a dog? -- mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad? he says that we have no days, we have the best system in the world, and things that embarrass us every moment. iran is proud of its amazing history, it's a poet. your national pride is frederick

douglass britis. our national pride is our writers. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> we are going to move into our first panel. russ is very much. grus is. it was wonderful. -- thank you very much. thank you. it was wonderful. [applause] >> good morning. we are going to discuss the new media landscape of iran. we are going to interrogate the idea of who exactly is on

online in iran. we have a distinguished and group of commentators this morning, and i think we're going to get them on stage as quickly as we can because we have a limited amount of time. i will introduce them and they will come up. we have the middle east and north african coordinator for the community to protect journalists. prior to joining but, he was a researcher at the national endowment for democracy. before that, he was an analyst at human rights watch for five years. our next guest is the executive

editor of the persian news service. prior to joining but, she was at the affairs at dusk of cnn international for many years. she also worked in american journalism for many years, covering everything from hurricane katrina to u.s. and domestic policies. our next guest is best known it for depicting iran pose the most powerful clerics in his cartoons. -- running -- iran's most powerful clerics in his cartoons. he is known for his news and information networks. sorry, i am a a little bit nervous today. we are going to get on with the

conversation very quickly, and then we will have a conversation amongst all of us. thank you. we are going to begin today with mohammad. he is going to discuss the media landscape in iran, particularly with a focus on how reining in its blotters and citizen media discuss and engage in the professional media -- bloggers discuss and engage in the professional media. >> i want to begin by talking about a line between citizen and journalist and professionals. in iran, i think it is a

blurrier than it is in many places. this is due to multiple factors in iran. in the late 1990's, iran set up more than 400 publications within a matter of years. as a result, many journalists flocked online, hundreds of thousands of journalists really. these or a professional journalist alongside regular students, doctors, engineers, nurses, and all kinds of people who write on a line under blogs, on the news sources, on the newspapers and that no longer exist in print, that simply exist in cyberspace. not just iran, but all of the countries of the middle east region have had an explosion of internet penetration. there was a 13 fold increase in

the number of people online. so not only are the in numbers of people writing online mushrooming, but the people who have access to this material is growing at a similar speed. we have and iran and well here that consists bucket roughly 750,000 active and logged, -- active blogs, and by active i mean updated at least once a week. just to give you something to compare this to, the rest of the arab world has about 35,000 blogs. that gives you an idea as to how active our blogosphere is.

our government uses a combination of old school tactics as well as new ones. they do this on a legal realm as well as a technological one. when someone writes things that an authority does not like, they have a whole host of options as to how to neutralize this individual. they can prosecute this person under the penal code, or they can prosecute them under the new cyber crime penal code. those provisions are very vaguely defined and capone -- and can potentially be redefined to go after any of blocker that enters those authorities -- any

blogger that anchors at those authorities thoseangers -- angers those authorities. one thing that was said to a leading blogger to was arrested and in fact tortured, he was basically told, "there are too many of you. and every day there are more of you. we cannot bring all of you in here. but we can make examples of the people we bring in here. " i think this has more or less been the approach that the iran and the government has used from the early 2000's until now. the fact that we are having this

discussion, and that you all are here listening to this, shows that the government has potentially failed in stemming this tide of citizen journalism. i am going to close with that, and i am happy to take more questions when it comes time. >> i also want to mention that our online moderator is on stage with us today. she will be contributing some images and discussions from the blogosphere as we go. next we are going to discuss the perspective on where people receive information in iran, and also -- >> good morning. i am year to basically talk about how important international broadcasting is to iran.

america has been broadcasting to iran since 1942 in intervals. however, after the revolution, it has been going on a nonstop. in 2009, it became quite evident how important media is to the iranian people. a lot of people underestimate what the iranians can do, where they get their media from, what their platform is pitte. it was very easy to prove that when the iran and want to pursue information, and they have a ways to do it. just this past year, voice of america having -- voice of america had 20 two million visits to its website.

voice of america was known to be an audience of an older demographic. now the democratic is under 30. we established that by using facebook pages, put your pages -- twitter pages and other social media website. if people want to get their information, they have many ways to do it. in the early 1990's, they had to go through all different route just to get a selection of television channels. international broadcasters have tapped into different ways to get information into the country. then people can decide on the

information that they can not get within their own media stations. it has been extremely important to understand that international broadcasting for iran and other countries around the area is extremely vital. it provides information they cannot get through their own country. they make decisions based on the the things that are happening. i believe in giving voice to the voiceless, and in putting out information and having people decide. i cannot underscore enough how important it is, in this day and age, in an journalism, to know how to reach your audience, know who your audience is, and how to get them the information that is out there. i will be happy to take more questions as warranted. >> i think we should have a brief statement from everybody before we go into a conversation. briefly.

>> i would like to say a few things later after i show my cartoon. this is about the fate of the iranian reporters and a citizen and journalist altogether. many had to leave the country after the election in the june 2009. many of them are in turkey, france, iraq, and other places. why am i bringing this up? one important thing is that many iranian journalist turned into a citizen of journalists. many iranian citizen journalists are actually journalists/citizen journalists. that might sound weird.

we have transformed islam in our own way. we have also transformed citizen journalism into something else. showed the second one please. this is about the iranian journalism. they bear their own across. they know they will be crucified in the future, but we love it. i call this the sound of silence. many people cannot hear the silence of iranian journalist. they hear about mahmoud ahmadinejad, who shouts a lot. he talks about so many things. he is a very good subject for my cartoons. i love him for that. i am going to miss him. [laughter] but he causes a problem that

many of the people here cannot listen to the voices of iran and journalist. this is talks about the balanced that we have experienced in iran. -- balances that we have experienced in iran. this is what the government and the judiciary actually expect from us in iran. be quiet and publish whatever the government asks us to publish. if you are a thinker, you are a stinker in iran. they would terrorize your thoughts but yourself as well. this is how we have coped with censorship. we cannot live about each other. we have sensors -- censors

better than governor patterson. this is what happens to iranian journalists who are in prison for a while. even after getting out of prison, their pen is in prison. we are talking about how the internet can help us. but when the google was a blocked, it was blocked for a day or two, it was very difficult for people to use other search engines. google is addictive. this showed the problem. we talk about balance. in iran, many of my colleagues know that being impartial is very hard. usually journalists take sides. they aren't members of active parties.

they have to promote -- they are members of active parties. they have to promote what the party leader is saying. next one please. sorry for my language. this is about how mock mood of a minute jog claims to actually win 62.6% -- about how mahmoud ahmadinejad claims to actually win a 62.6% of the vote. this is about a citizen and journalists. -- citizen journalists. many iranian and journalist turned into citizen and journalist. because of their name and their

fame, and many other people also decided to get involved. 20 years ago, if they had been able to use cell phones, they would have said smile, your honor youtube. -- you're on youtube. i usually use the crocodile to symbolize a romains conservatives. that is -- the iran and the conservatives. -- iranian conservatives. you use the elephant. if there is too much pressure through the blogosphere and en route youtube -- and through

youtube, the conservatives have to about. -- to bow. remember when a mahmoud ahmadinejad said that there were no homosexuals in iran? this shows him with hugo chávez. they are having a lot of fun. he would deny any connection, but it has happened. [laughter] remember when mr. obama said that if our opponents and clenched their fist, we would extend a hand? shaking a hand with the devil when his hand is a bloody would not be that clean and clear. mr. obama is shown here shaking

hands with mahmoud ahmadinejad who is stepping on the green party members. thank you very much. [applause] >> muhammed, if every citizen in iran is potentially a journalist, how does that kind of behavior, and you put it at 70,000 active and blotters -- active bloggers, the typical community there likes to link to each other and network with each other. how does that connect with the wider world. what is the dynamic between the internal conversations that

occurred between iran hands, and the broader -- that occurred between iranians, and the broader world? >> i would say that the iran and the government has really pushed a lot of people into this arena. there is a lot of linking. there is a lot of exchange between the iranian blogosphere and the arab blogosphere, between iran and the american blogosphere. the bloggers read "the new york times," and write their own stories about those stories.

in many ways, the iranian government has done itself a disservice by narrowing the options so much that people were forced to migrate to the new medium altogether. they are regretting that as we speak. >> most of the demographic is under 35 or 30. everyone seems to have a stake in of this movement. there are a lot of women, and a lot of younger folks. everyone with a cell phone, with internet access, could find a way to have their voices heard. we knew that different media venues were trying to get into iran after the election, and they could not. however, website like twitter

became huge after that, so much so that the chinese were paying attention. people knew that they could make a change. they had to take out their cell phones, and put it out there. i feel like everybody realized that if they wanted to make a change, they had to do something about it, and now they have the tools. the older generation could not. >> if i may, there was a blogger in a jail in 2005, and he recently is calling on a campaign of other bloggers to

write about their experiences in prison, and to write about the people who are still in jail. nobody knows about them. he himself has been writing about a prisoner sitting somewhere in a prison in iran, and nobody knows about it. it shows how they are using this new media. a is the point you mentioned about this movement, peaches -- the point you mentioned about this movement, each citizen is a media. they are launching his campaign. it is very powerful, i think. >> is technology a silver bullet? >> not exactly. >> what is it? how does the technology interact

with political movement and reform movement in fact how should we think about those relationships taxe? >> i actually think it helps when the government cut off the internet connection in this city a port city the -- city a or city b. there should be a combination between traditional networking and modern networking. how did it networking work in at the 1979 revolution? did people have internet? know. did anyone have a cell phone? actually, a majority did not have phones. you have to use whatever you can. iranians are very good at

adapting. >> it is not a silver bullet at all. it is merely the latest innovation that is being used by activist citizen journalist, but also being used by the government. the iranian regime is very sophisticated at monitoring and blocking, perhaps second only to china in the way that they filter and block. it is the only government in the middle east region that has developed its own software to filter and block. citizen and journalist when they are sitting in prison and being interrogated, usually up print out of their surfing history is presented. they are told to admit to everything they have done, thought about, or have not done.

it is not a silver bullet. it is more like a cat and mouse game. it is available to the bloggers. it is available to the government. there is no ultimate winner, as it were. it is a catch-up game. you see journalists online with a high level of technological and such a is a -- technological sophistication. they are much more able to circumvent these kinds of restrictions. >> if i may, you mentioned how the iran and the government is filtering website, but that is not all of what they are doing. they are doing more. one journalist was jailed in iran and actually updated his

blog from prison. it was an attempt to show how prisoners are well treated, but nobody believed him. this is his blog from prison with his picture, saying what a nice time he is having, and how it is such a nice interrogations, and how everything is rosy. >> a group of hackers actually hacked his puebla for a while just to stop the government from doing -- hacked his weblog for a while just to stop the government from doing this. . .

journalists and the ma mouse as it were the government, the cat will continue to play the same game. they will do it with more skill and with higher sophistication. both technological and also i think there will be an increase in volume. the number of blogs that cover political unrest and the jailing of other journalists and other bloggers have skyrocketed since the june elections. so i think there's an upshot in volume.

but there's also an increase in sophistication by essentially both sides of the equation. but the dynamic is still the same one. people are trying to speak freely. and the government is trying to suppress that speech. and the fact that this has gone on for as long as it has really from the late '90s onward is proof that this is -- this is a long war. and these are merely battles in this war. i think the government and occasionally bloggers themselves have declared victory prematurely on both sides. there is no victory today or tomorrow or the next month. this is a long war. >> if i may, this cat and mouse thing -- sometimes even if the mouse is faster, the mouse might catch the cat. by its tail. so i think if we empower the mouse, this can happen. of course, i'm not talking about the wireless mouse or whatever.

but by creating citizen journalism platforms for volunteer we're, what we actually experienced in the past few months -- we started this platform called self-writing platform. and we have about 2,000 members. and most of them are from iran. and they're trying to give -- they have a voice right now. but they're trying to give choice to the choiceless. it's not just about voice to the voiceless. so they're talking. and they're questioning the authority. even questioning the leaders of the green movement. asking them questions. what were you doing in the 1980s? when people were being killed or tortured. so this is important. and we have to change the mindset as ms. nafisi said. if well-known bloggers can do it, others who are interested can get involved and continue. >> you know, another angle to look at is the mediums have

provided a sense of anonymity. people have gotten more courageous about putting their stories out. before, there was a worry about being persecuted and being caught. since the volume has gone so much higher, people are more apt. they've become more courageous. and wanting to have a stake in this movement. you know, even as long as i remember when i was in iran, you know, just like ms. nafisi would tell us, there was some banned books. we couldn't read certain books in school. and i could never understand that given that i grew up in the states. how could you not read a great piece of literature? it would be passed on from different people from folks to folks or poetry even for that matter. so this sort of has changed into another level now. where people are now becoming more open about sharing their thoughts about what they experienced. if they've been detained. if they have not. what they think of it. whether it's pro or against. i mean, it goes both ways. you might find folks, no i'm happy just the way i am.

it's hard to believe but they might exist there. now there is a medium now for them to actually put it out there. whether it is anonymously, whether it's not. what have you. but they now have the tools to actually speak out. and the fear factor of it has gone much less. >> i think we have time for a few questions from the audience. so if you'd like to speak, please come up to the mic. >> hi. i'm miriam. i'm part of a growing group of iranian-americans or iranians in the diaspora who are pushing hard for the u.s. government to break iran's firewall. the u.s. government has among its means the technologies that can do this, free gate tour and other antifiltering.

but the server capacity is limited. so the number of people being able to access the internet freely is very low compared to what it was just after the iranian election. in june. which wasn't even high even then. we're trying to get the obama administration to release funds that the u.s. congress has already appropriated to the state department for this use. we are encountering a lot of resistance. we have a lot of allies in the u.s. congress. senator brownback is a huge supporter. i'd like to ask your opinions on the panel, what can the u.s. do to safely, securely help internet freedom in iran? promote internet freedom in iran? and why do you think it isn't doing it so far? thanks. >> before we go to the panel, i think we have a quick --

>> we have a video from a blogger which is on the same topic. he's a blogger. he was one of the few -- the first blogger is to blog from the baluchistan province. it shows how blogging is popular and how widespread blogging is in the country. and now he's based in london. and he talks about the same topic. if we could have that video. >> hello, i'm iranian blogger from london. citizen media and blogging have many problems in iran. but important problem are filtering sanctioned by american companies. and security of bloggers and citizen journalists. filtering is not working to stop blogging in iran. and iranian users are using

google, it's or some program to reach their website or blog. but sanctioned by american companies but it's very important. sanctioned by american companies such as google and microsoft cause us to -- cause us iranian user cannot have some software or tools. and it cause us big situation for iranian user. because insight of iran they are under pressure by filtering and outside of iran they are under pressure by sanction. and last item or thing is security of bloggers is very sensitive.

because there are many red line in iran for blogging or writing something in the website or web blog. and if someone cross those red lines, it cause us the web blog will be blocked by government. >> anybody would like to comment? >> i think the top thing one needs to do is education. i think -- you know, now the u.s. and other countries have -- are starting to understand what iran is all about and the repression and what the people are all about. and i think education is the number one thing and finding ways to get proxy servers. or to get ways to send out signals or spoofing mechanisms

if i'm using that correctly to get means for them to funnel into websites to put their views on. to put their blogs on. to get their news out. and to be able to break down these firewalls that exist around iran. it's a very hard task. it's something that millions of dollars is poured into it with all sorts of different companies to try to do. it's not just for iran but other places like china as well. but i think the number one thing is education. because a lot of times they don't know. they just don't know how many users are out there. and they don't know how many people -- or teaching them how to use it. that would be my number one thing. >> the main problem here is one must be very careful not to link the iranian blogosphere as a whole this is a very diverse group of people with the u.s. with the u.s. government.

it is a heterogeneous group of people that are -- and they're not all pro-american. they are not all pro-mahmoud ahmadinejad. they're too many people and they're too different. and i'm not certain that a u.s. government initiative funded by u.s. taxpayer money would be doing some of these courageous people who are putting their lives on the line a service. there are multiple mechanisms for people to use circumvention software and proxy service. is more of that needed? absolutely. is the u.s. government the best source for this kind of thing? probably not. >> just one thing to add. first of all, we have to know what are the capacities in iran? you have to study them. two, please avoid -- i should tell this to many lobbyists who might want to make money for a

few individuals or companies in the states as they've always done. please stop just selling crazy ideas. like one thing i heard that an individual is going from door to door in washington, d.c., promoting the idea of giving satellite internet connections to people inside iran. the government can detect any sender receiving tools in the country. they arrested many people in 2002 and 2003. they don't work then how can it work now. first of all, let's study. let's think. and then do something. not just do and then put a lot of people in trouble. >> i'm a writer and blogger and also am the secretary-general of iran students in the latest report of congressional research

service my organization is the biggest student organization that had the most influential organization in iran now. and you can find it easily on the state department's website. three years ago i was foreign five years in jail and because of for my student activity and writing. after i came here i had testimony with the u.s. senate and i said maybe the radio can be better. i didn't say they are bad. i said they can be better. testimony u.s. senate, homeland security. after that the voice of america persian department and and i could go to fox news, cnn, cbs and everywhere not in voice of america of persian services and -- maybe my farsi is not so good. but it's so good.

my question is directly to hidal and jeffery can help you a little bit about this one. why you are boycotting the people that you don't like it in persian services. the voice ofage)a@@@@ "s s >> i think that is wrong. if you want to give real-time, maybe you like it, but last week, [inaudible] the day after, his best friend was there and [inaudible] you give a lot of time to them.

[applause] >> first of all, we do not boycott anybody. that i stand by firmly. i always say if you are pissing off both sides, you are doing your job right. issing both sides of the arena you're doing your job right. the pronii-nyack folks and the anti-nyack folks we are on both sides and giving equal playing ground. the media or the news is not something we generally like to cover. i mean, who likes to cover what happened just with the polish president yesterday? or so many other things and the things that are happening in iran all the time. there's so many voices out there that we are actively trying to pursue to bring on to the air.

to give the different sides. it's a very tricky thing. but firmly, there's no boycott. it wouldn't be right to boycott. if that's the case we wouldn't have many at times members of different other parties that were also on our air. and that we actively pursue to come on our air. yeah. the media is always about going straight down the middle. both the red and the blue both sides down the aisle wherever you are in the world to make sure you get both voices heard. >> the panelists have alluded to the blurring of line of citizen journalism and professional journalism and another line that's getting blurred and it's probably more important although it may be less visible is the

line between the public sphere and the private sphere. a most illustrative instance of that was the wife of the presidential candidate holding the hand of her husband almost all the time during the campaign. more recently, the wives and husbands of jailed journalists are writing love letters to their loved ones in jail. is this public or private? my question is, how does this all this blurring and going back to the game of cat and mouse it may be complicated enough. but in that, of course, the two sides are bringing different skills to bear on this game. but what does all of this portend for action or hopeful action in the future? i would like to also refer to mr. kowsar's cartoons are telling and there's another suspect. -- aspect.

the opposition in iran, the bloggers included, the cartoonists included seem to vent out more than what would want to vent out and complain than actually guide the way to some sort of action in iran. is this a remnant vestige of a shia mentality where victimization plays a big part. how can all this energy that you've all alluded to be channeled in ways that are more positive than we know we have a whole force. what is being accomplished? and what can be accomplished within reason? thank you. >> regarding the guiding question, i don't think journalists could be a leader. but journalists can just describe what's happening. if a journalist turns into an activist and becomes a leader in some way, yes. the journalists can actually give a guideline especially

cartoonists. i think what we usually do is making fun. but telling a story through making fun. and i'll pass it on. >> i think i have to respectfully disagree with you. i don't think there's a blurring between the personal and the professional. and obviously i'm not speaking for every single one of the 70,000 blogs i mentioned earlier. but i think in general terms, when the government detons -- detains a blogger or a journalist and this person is held in soltarily confinement and this person is tortured and he has his head is bashed into the wall and his family visits after 90 or 100 days without visits and they write a letter to a family or friend describing some of the things they witnessed the 3-minute supervised visit and that's then carried on a blog or in an

online news source, that is, in fact, news. it's maybe not the most traditional news. it's maybe not the news that we saw 10 or 15 years ago. but that's the news that the iranian government has created in acting the way it's acted. and so i personally don't view that as a subversion of news as it were or as a broadening of news to include the personal -- as opposed to the professional. i think those are legitimate news stories. and the iranian people above all more so than us need to know what their government is doing in their name. >> you know, i agree with you. i mean, the personal accounts that they're getting through these different letters or these three minute visits that people have been able to see a side of the dealings within the government and how they deal with things that become personal stories and memoirs of folks.

and it's just a layer or a slice of life of what they're actually going through. i don't think it's all of the story. but it's just a moment in time. i think another way to also look at it would be, you know, the fact like let's say twitter. they would use these one-line accounts of things that would happen, whether it was on the street, different meetings, seeing whatever they saw and they would come back there and put it out, you know, for the world to see. it's a different form. it's a different media. and it's also another way of getting sources and accounts that we didn't get before. >> and it's interesting. there's a lot of discussion about whether there's -- whether the blogosphere or the online space is pushing -- pushes forward a certain kind of political change. and there's an assumption of agency that might occur. i think a lot of the analysis that we see, though, is that successful online movements are

very closely linked to off-line movements. each one works in a different context, in a different way so what might work in the u.s. might not work in iran. and what works in moldova might not work incurred stan. -- in kurdistan. and when you look at online conversation and community morphs or doesn't morph into a functioning and successful activist movement, you have to analyze the space and the world in which it actually exists. and who the leaders are. it's own history. there's not an expectation that it's going to work in every case. it's not a determined relationship, if you will. >> can we have the iranian editor of global voices. and he's also the cofounder of the march 18 movement. this is a movement that was created after a blogger died in prison. and he has written a post for us. if we go to his -- and it's

about that -- let me read from this. this is no doubt the citizens protesting the results of the june presidential election have made efficient use of twitter, facebook, youtube and blogs to i immortalize their movement. it's not about the people. it's the people. as he also says that iranian citizen media is the extension of real people's activities. so a lot will depend on the people on the ground and not on twitter and facebook and blogs. >> and just on to follow up on what you were saying, eisen. -- ivan. this is a new medium and people are learning as they go along. and not every single blogger adheres to the same professional values. and we have to recognize that.

there isn't a body in place to sort of regulate and maintain some sort of uniformity. and that's only natural. it's not a big deal. i think the readers are the ones who decide what bloggers become popular and what bloggers will frankly stop writing because nobody is reading their stuff. the other thing i wanted to mention briefly is what works in tehran may not work in the provinces. i mean, this is really not a difference from between to country to country. this is a difference between the capital where there's -- people have certainly a lot more leeway than people in the provinces. some of the stuff that people write in tehran on a daily basis and don't get into trouble for would never be allowed in kurdistan or in other sort of less developed parts of the country where local administrators have far more power as individuals simply go and grab somebody and throw nem in a dungeon somewhere and have them forgotten.

there's a lot of variety. and readers and writers we have to recognize the variety. and frankly give bloggers and writers the benefit of the doubt. they are putting a lot on the line, professionally and personally to bring us news we wouldn't get. this is not stuff you can, you know, switch channels and see on your tv. very frequently this stuff only exists in this format. it's important that we -- we encourage it and it's important that it continues to grow. >> my name is jonathan cohen. i'm with the bush institute in dallas. next week we're having a conference on cyberdissent. featuring dissidents from countries around the world. my question is related to the

variety of dissidents who are bringing to our conference. and i'm prompted by the interesting phenomenon from the green movement protests of last where the chinese religious movement provided servers to iranian dissidents. to get their message out. and i'm curious to know from the panel to what extent is there cross-border cooperation between iranian bloggers and other cyberdissidents. and other fellows in other countries. >> actually there are many universities around the globe that are helping iranian bloggers or even iranian geeks. they are actually trying to provide iranians with proxies. you might have heard of siphon. of course, it doesn't work. that's the problem. it doesn't work properly. because the iranian government knows how to block it.

but many iranian bloggers who are also studying computer science are trying to get help from the universities to pass that help. to pass the torch actually to people inside the country. it's working. but absolutely. many people are actually even creating videos. i know of a few who are actually doing it right now. email, not even to post on youtube because many people inside the country have having watching youtube videos. they're sending the videos -- and these are guidelines that how people can cross the filters. >> a really quick comment on that. and that is about the network nature of online communication.

i think there's an incredible amount of diversity across different countries and different communities. that has to do with first translation. and second recontextualization of the people throughout the world. when i tal >> that conversation is occurring all of the time and on platforms that people build it themselves. what we should expect is that people will continue to figure out ways to build platforms to communicate with people that they want to end those conversations will be diverse and on different platforms and they will be with people all around the world. it is not just an american- iranian dialogue. we have time for one more question. >> my name is buster brown, i am a student at the school.

a lot of what has been talked about today has to do with exposing truth. a lot of what we hear about in the american media is about the extremist movements throughout the middle east. a lot of things i have learned about is that these movements are misinterpreting the koran. they are justified murdering nonbelievers through religion. i was wondering if you guys thought that journalism and reporters should do more to expose these misconceptions. >> there is a very fine line between what any religion is and the politicized version of that religion. many times, those lines to get blurred. even in broadcasting, the images that we see of the different

acts of terrorism in the name of allah what happened to in waco, i agree, i think that the media has to educate more and give more background and understanding about what the story is really about and not what it is purported to be. sometimes, when you are fighting so hard to be first to get the story out, you forget the nuances that give a bigger picture so that those who did not know all of the story. it is something that does need to be pointed at and eliminated and put into context, not the marketing form. >> you are the boss. you are the viewer and readers

so if you do not like what you see, turn it off and go read something else and at the end of the day, if you zoom out far enough, that is what makes a successful show, newspaper, or blog. that is the difference between a successful channel and a channel that nobody watches. it is really up to you and up to everybody else. >> i think it is an interesting way to wrap. it points once again to the diversity of the i iranian blog osphere. it is mostly not about politics. i think it is a healthy reminder for us that we should be paying attention and listening more and reading more and observing that

the vast diversity out there for us. and we are out of time but we would like to give everybody a big round of applause for participating. [applause] >> thank you. we are going to get the second panel of. -- the second panel up. we are going to get quickly here in the next few minutes. we will be moving right along. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> up next, a number of former u.s. ambassadors who served in the middle east to give their take on the current political situation. after that, an update on the white house nuclear weapons summit. >> senate investigators said washington mitchell, the largest u.s. bank to ever fail, engaged in fraudulent and deceptive practices in its mortgage business. former executives testified tomorrow morning. live coverage from the senate governmental affairs subcommittee on investigations start at 9:30 eastern on c-span 3. >> we are prepared to commit that a republican president and

a republican congress in february and march will repeal every radical bill passed by this machine miss one of the speakers at the seventh republican leadership conference? at the new c-span library, you can search it, watch it, and share it. every c-span program since 1987 is available. it is cable's latest gift to america. >> now a group of former u.s. ambassadors to middle east nations discussed the obama administration's approach to the middle east peace process. this is being hosted by the woodrow wilson center. it is just under two hours.

good morning. welcome to the wilson center and today's meeting. the obama administration and arab-israeli peace. today's meeting is the 19th session in the forums. we are delighted to have with us today the chairman of the board of the woodrow wilson center, ambassador joseph who has been a supporter of the middle east program. as some of you know, the woodrow wilson international center was established by an act of congress in 1968 and is our nation's official living memorial to president woodrow

wilson. the center is a nonprofit institution for policy research and a dialogue. we bring together the thinkers and doers, policy makers, scholars, and business leaders in the hope that open dialogue will lead to better understanding for operations and public policy. we are delighted to have with us today five former u.s. ambassadors, the fifth one is coming from union station, but we are delighted to have with us these ambassadors. my colleague, who is currently a public policy scholar at the center, will chair the meeting.

they served both democratic and republican administrations. his most recent book is "the much to promised land." his new book, "can america have another great president" will be published in 2012. i urge you not to -- i urge you to read his upcoming cover story coming out. he is very good at very provocative topics. before i call on aaron, can i please remind you to close your cell phones, do not text message during the session because it will interfere with our live web cast.

we have an overflow. we will take questions from the overflow. welcome. >> thank you. one of my greatest pleasures has been able to work with you. welcome and good morning. 15 months into the administration of a potentially transformative president, this president is wrestling with what i call the problem of the much too promised land. his determination to seek the creation of a palestinian state on his watch is exceeded only by the degree of difficulty in doing so. according to some, one and a half years in, there are no negotiations. we are in the middle of a major

rift with the government of israel. we have very little street credibility among the arabs and palestinians. according to some, not much has been accomplished by the president. according to others, there is a different view. this is a potentially transform the president that has reached celebrated the american relationship with israel. he is determined, absolutely determined, to see a breakthrough on his watch even if it involves the necessity of putting out an american plan because he is convinced that on his watch, a palestinian state will either be born or it will never be created and on his watch, iran may or may not cross the nuclear threshold. these are important calculations for the legacy of a president.

i guarantee he is thinking now about that legacy. to help us make sense of these matters and others, we have identified and created a truly exceptional panel. they're going to help us look forward but also help us look back. as a historian by training, i think looking back is important. it was mark twain who argued that history does not repeat as much as rhyme. it rhymes. of the reality is what worked and what did not work over the course of the past 40 years and our pursuit of arab-israeli peace needs to be of said project needs to be paid attention to very carefully. -- needs to be paid attention to very carefully. if you do not know where you have been, chances are you did not know where you are going. we have over one century of

experience which is quite extraordinary. more than 100 years of expertise and wisdom in dealing with the middle east tradition and that is quite extraordinary. i would spend most of the morning reading bios which i will not do. i will introduce them in the order that they will speak. undeservedly briefly, i might add. currently a lecturer of middle eastern policy studies at the woodrow wilson school of public and international affairs at princeton. who served both as international ambassador to israel and egypt as well as other capacities in region and here at the department of state. jake wallace is a fellow for diplomatic studies.

he served as consul general in jerusalem and our embassy in athens and holding many other positions in department of state. i will not introduce franc until he comes. edward gineen is at the elliott school at george washington. and he was an ambassador to kuwait, australia, and jordan. he held other positions widely throughout the region. the president and ceo of a company here and has served in many posts throughout the region. with that a brief introduction, i turn it over to you. each panelists will speak no more than 10 minutes. i will ask a question of the two and we will go directly to your questions.

thank you. >> good morning. i just want to clarify that the 100 years of experience is not individual. it is cumulative. i would like to say hello to joe and thank him for all he has done and for those who organized this. let me start out with just a short tail. i arrived yesterday from paris. it was a tough conference but somebody had to do it. what was interesting about the experience is barack obama retains all of the potential that many of us saw in him one year ago and none of the criticism that some of us now have for what happened over the past year. he is extraordinarily a superstar in rep. if you'd hear this morning criticisms about the obama administration's policies, just

remember that is an inside the beltway phenomenon and not necessarily the way the rest of the world feels about what we have done or failed to do. with that said, i want to offer some constructive criticisms and to look ahead in the spirit of the introduction. looking back to learn lessons and looking ahead. if this were my class, i would have given you two reading assignments, won a book that i did for the u.s. institute of peace that took the -- took a hard look of 20 years of american diplomacy and offered what we think we're rather stinging criticisms of how we failed to achieve in to the peace process. the second would be to estimate that i offered a couple weeks ago to the senate and which i tried to dissect the obama administration's policies and approach to the peace process and found both the 11watno.

on. if we had a strong middle east peace process policy, i am not sure we would be having this session. one of the first things to say about this first year is that the president launched the peace process rather significantly quickly by appointing george mitchell as special envoy on the first full day of the administration. by indicating both dan and subsequently that the peace process is an american national interest which is tied to the agenda of president obama. from that moment, however, the administration seems to have blundered into a number of steps, none of which have had any success in advancing the prospects of peace. let me look at three issues quickly and take an even quicker look at the receptivity for the thein moodi in region.

the question that needs to be posed as the situation on the ground, is it right and conducive to having a peace process? one could make the argument that the situation is far from right. that the israeli government is now essentially a conservative or right-wing government that seems more interested in advancing the prospects of settlements of them a chance -- than advancing the prospects of negotiations. the atmosphere in both communities is relatively sour. one could say on the surface that the situation is not right for active diplomacy. on the other hand, for those who have studied or worked this issue, it is not as bad as it has been in past years. in fact, public opinion polling

continues to show significant support for the kind of concessions that would be necessary if there were a serious peace process. palestinian economies and the west bank are not perfect but better than they have been in recent years. palestinian security forces are being trained by american and other international trainers and are providing the kind of objective and attendant security capacity that we have long demanded. in israel, it is a vibrant economy and society and public opinion polls continue to show a great willingness to compromise. past administrations, working in equally challenging or in some cases more challenging, have succeeded in helping the parties make process -- make progress. if we look at we lookin which a peace process that still

operate, not perfect but it is in a place where it efforts could be made to advance peace. what is missing is the policy and approach. it is on these two issues that i would argue that if we had our five minutes with the president, what would we say? i would simply say, we do not yet have a policy or strategy. you will argue with me and say we have a policy. i would suggest that is an approach could not a policy. 43 years after the 1967 war, if you ask an american diplomat what is our view, the american view with respect to a peace settlement is he or she will not know because we do not have a view that we are able to articulate as a country. if we took a poll in this room, my guess is we would have a very strong consensus about what it is that should emerge from peace negotiations.

essentially 100% of the territory would be transferred to the palestinian state with swaps of some accommodation of heavy settlement blocks. it would be a very significant emphasis on security and jerusalem would be the capital of two states with a demographic division outside the walls of the old city and some creative solution, perhaps an international management solution, for the old city and the historic basin. settlements would effectively be withdrawn except for those places where there would be an agreement with the would remain within the state of israel and refugees would have the right to return to the state of palestine with some accommodation by israel, given its sovereign right to make this decision, to either admit or not admit some people based on thfamily reunification. i think we should come up -- we could come up even in this room

with a sensible approach that represent a consensus view in the region. yet the government does not have a policy that particulates that sort of approach. the first thing we need is a policy. it is not a plan or something we would seek to impose. it is not something we would tell the parties they had to accept nor something we would pre-negotiate pandit it is american policy. i would articulate that policy soon so that the parties know where we stand and our own diplomats and public know where we stand, as well. the second thing is we need a strategy. negotiations are part of the strategy. you will not have an outcome of this conflict without direct, face-to-face, hard-nosed negotiations between the parties. if that is the only element to the strategy, we are missing out on a number of other factors which need to be taken into account. we need negotiations.

we also need to continue efforts to build a palestinian institutions, bill the institutional capacity for statehood, including the capacity for security, you need an approach which brings the arab world into the peacemaking efforts far more ambitiously that has been done until now. you have since 2000 to an arab peace initiative that is potentially very far reaching but has sat out there with nothing happening. the arabs have taken no steps to activate it and the u.s. has taken no steps to find out whether or not it should be activated. last june, the president explored one confidence-building measure with the saudis and was turned down. he asked for overflight rights over saudi arabia but it made no sense because there was no context to ask for a single confidence-building measure. we need to talk to the arabs

about how you activate an arab peace initiative in which they argue it's a significant change from everything they have adopted in past years. one element of such an arab strategy would be to reconstitute and reinvigorate multilateral engagements. we had multilateral talks in the 1990's on several matters, one not resume these and get expert working together? have arabs and israelis actually meet each other, even while the diplomats are meeting in the negotiating room to work out differences. a third element to strategy is to activate the arab peace initiatives. i would also argued there is a fourth element which is not so much in the hands of the government but which is very much something that places like the woodrow wilson center and other non-governmental institutions can do, and that is to start dialogue within two

critical communities, both of which who have been left out entirely from the peace process efforts. that is the refugee community among palestinians and the settler community among israelis. it is critical we find ways to start talking to these communities because at the end of the day, if we ever do reach agreements, these two communities will have a large say in whether or not the two societies and up supporting the outcomes. let me suggest a word about the bilateral u.s.-israeli relations. this recent mini crisis between the u.s. and israel is in the absence of an american policy. frankly, it is understood that we would be very upset or even angry that our vice-president was confronted with the settlement announcement during

his visit which was designed to repair our relationship but to have a crisis over a neighborhood in jerusalem which under a demographic division of the city will end up staying in the state of a drill made no sense. it reveals the problems that i identified earlier which is there was no context for this crisis. i suggest we take a step backwards t and stepwo sets of trends in israel which are critical. there is a significant set of changes on the way in israel but i think are being ignored by academics and policy makers. an israeli professor who has done extensive studies on the effects of terrorism on political attitudes said recently something quite remarkable and the had a analysis to prove it. he said that terrorism has exceeded in shifting the political spectrum to the left

but to shift the israeli electorate to the right. in other words, 20 years ago, if you asked members if they would support a palestinian state, they would say absolutely not. one year ago, the prime minister of the state of israel, announced support for palestinian statehood with conditions. in other words, the debate was in israel -- within israel has shifted to the left and there is a much larger consensus within israeli society that supports a two-state solution. but the israeli electorate under the impact on preventing palestinian violence and incitement which continues today in terms of education, public media, has shifted to the right. it has found the right-wing political parties more acceptable because those parts are willing to except the state but have a tougher approach with

respect to the specific negotiation elements. we need to take this into account. there are changes under way and in her -- in israel. let's try to understand what is happening as we move forward. i would suggest that israelis have come more to do with respect to us, as well. it is not insignificant that 70% of the american jewish committee voted for barack obama and if the election were to take place today, that number would be probably relatively close to 78%. that does not suggest that 78% of the jewish community does not support israel. probably 99% is as devoted and loyal to the idea of israeli security and well-being as anybody else. a large proportion of this community is willing to distinguish between the kind of support that israel is to have to maintain its security and

well-being and the kind of support that perhaps it does not deserve with respect to matters of choice when it comes to issues like settlements. israel also has to do homework to understand the changes within our society where you can be pro-israel and you can watch -- want the best for israel in terms of security and well-being but you can also be critical of israeli settlements and of other elements of israeli policy which and not conducive to peace. looking back, we have lessons to learn about what had succeeded in failed. the situation on the ground is challenging but not impossible. a strong american policy and a strong american strategy i think has a chance of having the parties reach an agreement that is fair and sustainable and which will help american interests, as well. thank you, very much. [applause] >> thank you.

you never disappoint. i am really happy to see ambassador wizener fresh up the train from new york. he is currently the current affairs adviser. he served as an ambassador to egypt, the philippines and india. he has served as undersecretary of defense and undersecretary of state. he has had numerous other positions in washington and abroad. we are delighted to have you. >> thank you very much. i appreciate being included in such a distinguished panel. i was struck as i listened that he might as well just continued on. he could